creationism and human races (adam and eve question)

imported_guy · 15-08-2009 02:52PM #1

Hello, I was born a muslim, but i am pretty agnostic at best, and have a few questions about religion(s) and one of them is shared by all abrahmic religions and that is the origination of humans from Adam & Eve (or even noah/wife).

While i belive it is possible that humans originated from 2 original human beings which were created by a deity, i find it hard to comprehend that different races can originate from 2 humans with identical phenotype, i.e (we know 2 white pople cant have chineese babies, if their phenotypes were all identcal/white)

so without turning this into creationism vs athiesm thread, can someone just explain in simple terms how abrahamic religions/chirstianity explain this phenomenon.

Fanny Cradock · 15-08-2009 03:11PM

There is a massive thread on this already, but seems as this is coming from a slightly different angle it might provide some light. Let's see what happens! But please let's not turn this into yet another "creationism" thread.

Anyway, I would subscribe to the idea that Adam and Eve were either two people amongst a wider population, or are metophor to describe a wider population. In both cases I would think that the difference was a mater of being made, receiving or developing the "spiritual image of God". I admit, though, that the latter phrase is quite wishy-washy, and I'm sure it could be expanded upon.

See theistic evolution.

imported_guy · 15-08-2009 03:32PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would subscribe to the idea that Adam and Eve were either two people amongst a wider population, or are metophor to describe a wider population.

ive skimmed through a bit of the wikipedia article and i see that this is supported by some christians like the roman catholics, but i had a debate about this with some evangelical fanatic from america who rejected this idea by saying something like "oh why would god want to change something slowly, he could have created the perfect form of humans from the start, and he did", and his arguments werent very constructive.

But yes, that certainly is a good point of view to put forward, but i want to know more so from point of view of a christian who explicitly believes in the biblical/abrhamic views of adam & eve and noah's family

wolfsbane · 15-08-2009 07:09PM

imported_guy wrote: »

Hello, I was born a muslim, but i am pretty agnostic at best, and have a few questions about religion(s) and one of them is shared by all abrahmic religions and that is the origination of humans from Adam & Eve (or even noah/wife).

While i belive it is possible that humans originated from 2 original human beings which were created by a deity, i find it hard to comprehend that different races can originate from 2 humans with identical phenotype, i.e (we know 2 white pople cant have chineese babies, if their phenotypes were all identcal/white)

so without turning this into creationism vs athiesm thread, can someone just explain in simple terms how abrahamic religions/chirstianity explain this phenomenon.

Hello, imported_guy. Good to have you with us.

The Bible assures us we are all from Adam and Eve, all of 'one blood'. After that our nearest common ancestors are Noah and his wife. So humankind had two bottlenecks; the origin, in Adam & Eve, and later Noah and the family on the ark. From the eight people on the ark, all humankind spread over the world.

Acts 17:24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Genesis 7:23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.

Genesis 8:18 Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham was the father of Canaan. 19 These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.

So how do we account for the different 'races'? No problem:
One race
http://creation.com/one-blood-chapter-4-one-race

Iwasfrozen · 16-08-2009 12:09AM

Surely Adam and Eve must have been Black, as we now know that all humans came from Africa ?

PDN · 16-08-2009 12:24AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Surely Adam and Eve must have been Black, as we now know that all humans came from Africa ?

While I have no problem if Adam & Eve were black, white or blue - I fail to see the logic of what you're saying.

Just because Africans are mainly black today it doesn't follow that the original ancestors of all races were also black.

CerebralCortex · 16-08-2009 01:53AM

PDN wrote: »

While I have no problem if Adam & Eve were black, white or blue - I fail to see the logic of what you're saying.

Just because Africans are mainly black today it doesn't follow that the original ancestors of all races were also black.

Indeed, but in a part of the world where the sun is far more intense then Ireland darker skin would probably be selected for over lighter skin much like how the indigenous people of Africa nowadays are predominantly dark skinned. That is of course if it confered an advantage in bringing an individual to a position where it could sucessfully procreate/replicate.

Fanny Cradock · 16-08-2009 08:13AM

imported_guy wrote: »

ive skimmed through a bit of the wikipedia article and i see that this is supported by some christians like the roman catholics, but i had a debate about this with some evangelical fanatic from america who rejected this idea by saying something like "oh why would god want to change something slowly, he could have created the perfect form of humans from the start, and he did", and his arguments werent very constructive.

But yes, that certainly is a good point of view to put forward, but i want to know more so from point of view of a christian who explicitly believes in the biblical/abrhamic views of adam & eve and noah's family

Yes, there are quite a few of the larger Christian denominations that woud accept this view. (Much to their credit the RCC is one such denomination.) Others denominations don't have an official opinion on the matter, and instead leave it to the individual to decide. And there exists denominations that actively oppose evolution and promote alternative theories like ID. I suspect that your American friend fell somewhere into the latter category.

If by "I want to know more so from point of view of a christian who explicitly believes in the biblical/abrhamic views of adam & eve and noah's family" you actually mean I want to hear for people who suscribe to a litteral reading of Genesis, then you should start at post one in the creationism thread and wourk your way through all 16,000+ posts. I hope that ges well for you! Alternatively, you could pop into the Resources sticky and follow the "creationism" links.

I've always wondered why people like Dawkins don't make some sort of unholy allience with theists who do believe in evolution. If I didn't know better I would suggest that it seems the focus on poo-pooing creationism, and by association theism in general, take persidence over getting evolution out there.

wolfsbane · 16-08-2009 03:24PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Surely Adam and Eve must have been Black, as we now know that all humans came from Africa ?

Not only does it not follow that originating in Africa means black (as PDN points out), it seems genetically neither black nor white can have been the original skin tone of mankind, as per the Punnett square in the section Skin color in the article I linked to.

Nor do we now know that all humans came from Africa. It is one current theory.

Biblically we know that Eden was located somewhere near the Euphrates. There is the home of mankind.

IRISH DAYWALKER · 17-08-2009 02:31AM

adam and eve were the first, god could have created other races after them, as the bible says adams son left the garden of eden and came back with a woman oh yeah!!!

Seaneh · 17-08-2009 03:53AM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Biblically we know that Eden was located somewhere near the Euphrates. There is the home of mankind.

A lot of jewish historians think that the Phison was either the Ganges or the Sefid and the Gihon to be Nile.

Many consider this area the birthplace of civilization (farming, written language etc) but very few would say that this would be the birthplace of humanity.

I myself see the Adam and Eve story as a metaphor for the population and Genesis as a rough outline of how the world was formed, chronologically, Genesis is immaculate for the most part in how the world is formed, its the time frame that is off, which leads me to believe it to be a metaphor.

I myself am an advocate for theistic evolution. Yes God could have just created us but he moulded the world in such a way that we couldn't have just be ploped on here and left to our own devices, he knew we needed help so he started us with baby steps and as we advanced he expanded out capabilities as a race.

Sam Vimes · 17-08-2009 09:00AM

Seaneh wrote: »

I myself am an advocate for theistic evolution. Yes God could have just created us but he moulded the world in such a way that we couldn't have just be ploped on here and left to our own devices, he knew we needed help so he started us with baby steps and as we advanced he expanded out capabilities as a race.

There is no such thing as theistic evolution. There is evolution by natural selection which is a process involving random genetic mutations and could quite easily not have formed anything like humans, and then there is intelligent design. Evolution requires natural selection and your version of it doesn't have it, it has divine selection

Fanny Cradock · 17-08-2009 12:10PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There is no such thing as theistic evolution. There is evolution by natural selection which is a process involving random genetic mutations and could quite easily not have formed anything like humans, and then there is intelligent design. Evolution requires natural selection and your version of it doesn't have it, it has divine selection

Really? So there is no such thing as theistic evolution? And even if there was it would necessarily reject natural selection? Humm, you might want to tell that to all the theistic evolutionists who do accept natural selection.

Sam Vimes · 17-08-2009 12:33PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Really? So there is no such thing as theistic evolution? And even if there was it would necessarily reject natural selection? Humm, you might want to tell that to all the theistic evolutionists who do accept natural selection.

Natural selection guided by whatever happens to be in the prevailing environment, not by God. If someone thinks that evolution was in any way guided to facilitate the formation of the human genome, what they believe in is not evolution

Sam Vimes · 17-08-2009 12:37PM

The point I'm making is this:

Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

The concept of theistic evolution of course exists and there are people who believe in it. My point is that it is in no way part of the theory of evolution. It is a religious addition to the theory which has no evidential basis

Zombrex · 17-08-2009 04:09PM

Theistic Evolution tends to be one of these nonsense concepts that really just exists to fit God in some where. When you actually look at it it is hard to figure what the heck it is actually saying or what God is supposed to have done

Some Theistic Evolutionists for example believe that evolution is exactly as it is, it is random mutations that are selected by the environment. But some how God knew what he wanted to produce so set the universe up in just such a way that the "random" mutations would be selected and produce humans eventually.

The issue with this is that it isn't particularly theistic. Life functions and develops perfectly fine without God so why introduce him. He doesn't do anything that requires him to do it. Theistic evolution looks exactly like evolution.

Others seem to hold to evolution but believe that at certain point God actually interacted with evolution along the way to nudge it in the correct direction. This removes some of the random from it and is basically just one step away from Intelligent Design.

The problem with this is that it is n't particularly evolutionary. If God nudges the evolutionary process in places that it would not be possible to develop anyway then it isn't evolution, it is intelligent design.

Sam Vimes · 17-08-2009 04:28PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Some Theistic Evolutionists for example believe that evolution is exactly as it is, it is random mutations that are selected by the environment. But some how God knew what he wanted to produce so set the universe up in just such a way that the "random" mutations would be selected and produce humans eventually.

The issue with this is that it isn't particularly theistic. Life functions and develops perfectly fine without God so why introduce him. He doesn't do anything that requires him to do it. Theistic evolution looks exactly like evolution.

This version of it pretty much demotes God to the manager who didn't do anything but who takes the credit for your work.

antiskeptic · 17-08-2009 04:29PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Theistic Evolution tends to be one of these nonsense concepts that really just exists to fit God in some where. When you actually look at it it is hard to figure what the heck it is actually saying or what God is supposed to have done

I imagine the place for Gods activity would have been to ensure that which could only otherwise have be left to chance. Naturalistic evolution wouldn't necessarily lead to 'us' and the fact we are here is lends no more support to chance than it does God. Chancedidit vs. Goddidit - which is more probable?

Some Theistic Evolutionists for example believe that evolution is exactly as it is, it is random mutations that are selected by the environment. But some how God knew what he wanted to produce so set the universe up in just such a way that the "random" mutations would be selected and produce humans eventually.

The issue with this is that it isn't particularly theistic. Life functions and develops perfectly fine without God so why introduce him.

Says who? We don't know whether chance did (although chance theoretically (it is said) could) produce us.

It need not be the case that 'us' is the only product of hands-off evolution that God could use to carry out his overall purpose. Perhaps any number of evolutionary pathways could have been suitable - meaning no need for intelligent design (in the sense that God would be free to sit on all possible pathways and utilse whatever his-hands-off evolution produces. 'Us' being it as it happens.

Not that I'm a theistic evolutionist it must be said..

darjeeling · 17-08-2009 04:34PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Theistic Evolution tends to be one of these nonsense concepts that really just exists to fit God in some where. When you actually look at it it is hard to figure what the heck it is actually saying or what God is supposed to have done

Some Theistic Evolutionists for example believe that evolution is exactly as it is, it is random mutations that are selected by the environment. But some how God knew what he wanted to produce so set the universe up in just such a way that the "random" mutations would be selected and produce humans eventually.

The issue with this is that it isn't particularly theistic. Life functions and develops perfectly fine without God so why introduce him. He doesn't do anything that requires him to do it. Theistic evolution looks exactly like evolution.

Others seem to hold to evolution but believe that at certain point God actually interacted with evolution along the way to nudge it in the correct direction. This removes some of the random from it and is basically just one step away from Intelligent Design.

The problem with this is that it is n't particularly evolutionary. If God nudges the evolutionary process in places that it would not be possible to develop anyway then it isn't evolution, it is intelligent design.

Deistic evolution would more accurately describe the belief of many Christians, including the spiritual leader of the Church of England, Rowan Williams:

Channel 4, The Genius of Darwin wrote:

Rowan Williams: Darwinism as a theory of how evolution works, a highly plausible, highly credible theory about biological history - I don't have a problem with that.

Richard Dawkins: Do you see god as having any role in the evolutionary process?

Williams: For me, God is the power or the intelligence that shapes the whole of that process, as Creator. God's act is the beginning of all creation.

Dawkins: By setting up the laws of physics in the first place in which context evolution takes place?

Williams: Things unfold within that.

Dawkins: What about intervening during the course of evolution?

Williams: I find that that rather suggests that God couldn't have made a very good job of making the laws of physics in the first place if He constantly needs to be adjusting the system, adjusting the works.

(Video here)

I'd be interested to know what Christians understand by the term 'natural'. The word seems to be used to refer to processes in which God is not acting. God, then, is an external agent who occasionally manifests himself within his universe to nudge it onto a different course.

Instead, taking Williams' apparently deistic view of the unfolding of the universe*, God can be seen as being woven into the fabric of his creation. All events are now a reflection of God's plan, and the distinction between divine and natural disappears.

*Leaving aside beliefs concerning the key miraculous events in the life of Jesus, where Williams does believe in theistic intervention.

Sam Vimes · 17-08-2009 04:54PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I imagine the place for Gods activity would have been to ensure that which could only otherwise have be left to chance. Naturalistic evolution wouldn't necessarily lead to 'us' and the fact we are here is lends no more support to chance than it does God. Chancedidit vs. Goddidit - which is more probable?

Actually it lends a lot more support to chance. That's what the theory of evolution is about, that random genetic mutations occurred and natural selection allowed them to flourish. If God is guiding the mutations it's not evolution, it's intelligent design. But mostly it lends more support to chance because we know that evolution exists but we don't know that God exists.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Says who? We don't know whether chance did (although chance theoretically (it is said) could) produce us.

Yes we do, it's called evolution.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It need not be the case that 'us' is the only product of hands-off evolution that God could use to carry out his overall purpose. Perhaps any number of evolutionary pathways could have been suitable - meaning no need for intelligent design (in the sense that God would be free to sit on all possible pathways and utilse whatever his-hands-off evolution produces. 'Us' being it as it happens.

Not that I'm a theistic evolutionist it must be said..

Why insist that God was involved in something that would be exactly the same if he wasn't involved in it

pts · 17-08-2009 05:08PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Why insist that God was involved in something that would be exactly the same if he wasn't involved in it

* cough confirmation bias cough *

marco_polo · 17-08-2009 05:16PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I imagine the place for Gods activity would have been to ensure that which could only otherwise have be left to chance. Naturalistic evolution wouldn't necessarily lead to 'us' and the fact we are here is lends no more support to chance than it does God. Chancedidit vs. Goddidit - which is more probable?

Says who? We don't know whether chance did (although chance theoretically (it is said) could) produce us.

It need not be the case that 'us' is the only product of hands-off evolution that God could use to carry out his overall purpose. Perhaps any number of evolutionary pathways could have been suitable - meaning no need for intelligent design (in the sense that God would be free to sit on all possible pathways and utilse whatever his-hands-off evolution produces. 'Us' being it as it happens.

Not that I'm a theistic evolutionist it must be said..

But don't those explainations imply a deterministic universe?

/ *Carefully covers free will trap with leaves

Zombrex · 17-08-2009 05:18PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This version of it pretty much demotes God to the manager who didn't do anything but who takes the credit for your work.

It also runs into the problem that if God does this for evolution he really does it for everything, because the entire environment effects evolution. You either have a universe (or at least a planet) where things that God did not control can happen or you don't.

If you do then theistic evolution won't work because God cannot control/decide what happens. He cannot direct, now or at the moment of creation, what he cannot control.

If you don't, if God controls or decides what happens in order to direct evolution to a point he wants then that causes major issues for the notion of free will and the future. If God wants to control how evolution takes place he needs to control if I sleep with that woman, eat that cheese roll, crash me car etc etc.

Zombrex · 17-08-2009 05:39PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I imagine the place for Gods activity would have been to ensure that which could only otherwise have be left to chance. Naturalistic evolution wouldn't necessarily lead to 'us' and the fact we are here is lends no more support to chance than it does God. Chancedidit vs. Goddidit - which is more probable?

But as Sam points out there is no difference, theistic "evolution" is supposed to be the theory of evolution with "theistic" stuck on.

If God is "ensuring" things then it isn't evolution, it is intelligent design. So what is the point of the evolution bit? God uses Darwinian evolution to produce humans over a period of 4 billion years except for the bits where he doesn't he jumps in there and does it himself?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Says who?

Well the theory of evolution, that is the point.

If Darwinian evolution isn't believed to be the process that produced life on earth then why say "theistic evolution". It isn't evolution at all, it is just theistic intelligent design.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It need not be the case that 'us' is the only product of hands-off evolution that God could use to carry out his overall purpose. Perhaps any number of evolutionary pathways could have been suitable - meaning no need for intelligent design (in the sense that God would be free to sit on all possible pathways and utilse whatever his-hands-off evolution produces. 'Us' being it as it happens.

But isn't "hands off" theistic evolution just evolution?

Again that is the point Sam was making. I can't think of any situation or scenario where "theistic evolution" actually makes sense or means anything. You are either talking about evolution or intelligent design.

Zombrex · 17-08-2009 05:42PM

This is actually a pretty good example of the compartmentalisation that us atheists are always going on about. We have to accept evolution the evidence is over whelming, but we have to get God in there some where ... I know "theistic" evolution! Just don't ask me to explain what the heck that actually means.

antiskeptic · 17-08-2009 05:52PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Actually it lends a lot more support to chance. That's what the theory of evolution is about, that random genetic mutations occurred and natural selection allowed them to flourish.

That chance could produce isn't support for chance did produce - at least not any more support for the notion that God did because God could.

If God is guiding the mutations it's not evolution, it's intelligent design. But mostly it lends more support to chance because we know that evolution exists but we don't know that God exists.

The suggestion was:

- that God didn't guide evolutions path to specifically result in us but..
- that God guided evolutions path (perhaps in initial conditions) to ensure at least one suitable-for-his-use outcome would result.

In other words, God ensures chance will produce a result whereas chance left to it's own devices might not produce a result.

Yes we do, it's called evolution.

Okay. We just don't know whether it was naturalistic chance or guided chance. (Guided chance is chance which has been stripped - by God -of the possibility of no suitable result)

Why insist that God was involved in something that would be exactly the same if he wasn't involved in it

A possible involvement has been suggested above. We can't know whether naturalistic chance can result in us.

Zombrex · 17-08-2009 05:55PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay. We just don't know whether it was naturalistic chance or guided chance. (Guided chance is chance which has been stripped - by God -of the possibility of no suitable result)

That isn't chance. The probability of something happening that can only happen is 1. Flip a coin with two heads you will get a head. There is no chance.

Theistic evolution is not evolution, it is intelligent design.

darjeeling · 17-08-2009 06:03PM

Wicknight wrote: »

You either have a universe (or at least a planet) where things that God did not control can happen or you don't.

If you do then theistic evolution won't work because God cannot control/decide what happens. He cannot direct, now or at the moment of creation, what he cannot control.

If you don't, if God controls or decides what happens in order to direct evolution to a point he wants then that causes major issues for the notion of free will and the future. If God wants to control how evolution takes place he needs to control if I sleep with that woman, eat that cheese roll, crash me car etc etc.

Simon Conway Morris attempts to square this circle by arguing - citing examples of convergent evolution - that the laws of the universe inevitably lead to the evolution of conscious, intelligent creatures that he would interpret (I gather) as being in the image of God.

Wicknight wrote: »

If Darwinian evolution isn't believed to be the process that produced life on earth then why say "theistic evolution". It isn't evolution at all, it is just theistic intelligent design.

Albeit a diluted form of intelligent design: ID with one hand tied behind your back. Our designer can't just jump right in and make what he/she wants straight off. Instead, he must proceed by incremental degrees.

.

JimiTime · 17-08-2009 06:26PM

Wicknight wrote: »

This is actually a pretty good example of the compartmentalisation that us atheists are always going on about. We have to accept evolution the evidence is over whelming, but we have to get God in there some where ... I know "theistic" evolution! Just don't ask me to explain what the heck that actually means.

Not that I really care for it myself, but I always assumed 'Theistic Evolution' was the belief that God shall we say, wrote the programme, and let it do its thing. Then at some stage bestowed a soul or spirit, or whatever one believes to be the essence of God that Man has, on what became man. Its not my bag though, so maybe I'm wrong.

Sam Vimes · 17-08-2009 06:29PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

That chance could produce isn't support for chance did produce - at least not any more support for the notion that God did because God could.

The theory of evolution is the support for chance producing us. If you don't think it was chance, if you think God was involved, then you don't believe in evolution

antiskeptic wrote: »

The suggestion was:

- that God didn't guide evolutions path to specifically result in us but..
- that God guided evolutions path (perhaps in initial conditions) to ensure at least one suitable-for-his-use outcome would result.

In other words, God ensures chance will produce a result whereas chance left to it's own devices might not produce a result.

Okay. We just don't know whether it was naturalistic chance or guided chance. (Guided chance is chance which has been stripped - by God -of the possibility of no suitable result)

There is no such thing as guided chance. If you think about it for a second it doesn't even make sense. It's like picking a card from a stacked deck. Chance is negated if the process was guided. Whether God guided it to produce humans exactly or just to produce some beings that could fulfil his plan, it's still intelligent design and not evolution

antiskeptic wrote: »

A possible involvement has been suggested above. We can't know whether naturalistic chance can result in us.

Yes we can, that's the whole point of evolution and we can give fossil and DNA evidence for many of the steps along the way, each stage of which can be produced from the last through random genetic mutations guided by natural selection

antiskeptic · 17-08-2009 07:09PM

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't chance. The probability of something happening that can only happen is 1. Flip a coin with two heads you will get a head. There is no chance.

Theistic evolution is not evolution, it is intelligent design.

Suppose chance on it's own can produce 100 different outcomes. And suppose that 50 of those outcomes have no suitability for Gods purposes. So he strips out the possibility of those useless 50 outcomes. And leaves chance to produce one of the remaining 50 (potentially useful to him) outcomes - by the same process of evolution that you hold to.

That's not intelligent design. It's limiting the boundaries of chance. Unless your supposing intelligent design by way of random mutation and survival of the fittest. That would be one to set the cat amongst the pigeons

creationism and human races (adam and eve question)

Comments